TempoLife › Features › Why the published literature is skewed
Why the published literature is skewed
Why the published literature is skewed: pages on the file drawer and positive-result bias, p-hacking (with a live garden-of-forking-paths demo where the…
This launch guide maps the topic, the source base and the practical questions. Check the linked official authority before acting on a rule, deadline, price or safety requirement.
What this guide covers
Pages on the file drawer and positive-result bias, p-hacking (with a live garden-of-forking-paths demo where the reader tortures a random dataset through subgroups and exclusions until it yields p<0.05), HARKing, outcome switching, preregistration and registered reports, the replication projects, spin in abstracts, and salami slicing.
The outcome-switching page is the useful one: it walks through comparing a trial's registered primary outcome on ClinicalTrials.gov or EU CTIS against the one the paper actually reported, which anybody can do in three minutes. Thirteen pages.
How to use it
Use Why the published literature is skewed as a structured learning path: begin with the vocabulary, follow the evidence map, and keep the uncertainty labels attached to claims as you compare sources.
The page keeps the main question, its evidence base and its limits together in one canonical place. That makes it useful as a quick orientation and avoids splitting a broad subject into shallow pages before each narrower answer has enough verified material of its own.
Search vocabulary in four languages
Terminology changes across borders. These are example phrases people use for the same subject in Estonian, Finnish, Russian and English; they are included as a practical vocabulary aid, not as hidden keywords.
| Language | Example phrase |
|---|---|
| Estonian | avaldamise kallutatus |
| Finnish | julkaisuharha tarkoittaa |
| Russian | публикационное смещение в науке |
| English | p-hacking explained simply |
Evidence and provenance
The evidence map below records the primary, official or openly licensed material chosen for this guide. It is deliberately visible so a reader can tell the difference between a rule published by an authority, a measured dataset and an editorial explanation.
Source: own writing, demo computed in the browser; ClinicalTrials.gov (US public domain) and EU CTIS records for the worked comparisons; Ioannidis 2005 (PLOS, CC BY) and the COMPare project cited. · checked 2026-09-09
Source names are preserved even where an authority changes its web address. No figure is added to this launch page unless it is already present in the cited source description or can be computed from a named dataset.
Scope and boundaries
This guide owns the explanatory layer for the topic. Personal decisions, diagnoses, legal determinations and live availability remain with the relevant professional or official service.
Connected TempoLife guides
The following paths are the intentional hand-offs named in the brief. They keep adjacent subjects separate while making the next useful reference easy to find.
Research
Continue to the related TempoLife reference.
Myths
Continue to the related TempoLife reference.
Why it belongs on TempoLife
/research, /myths.
Frequently asked questions
What does this guide cover?
Pages on the file drawer and positive-result bias, p-hacking (with a live garden-of-forking-paths demo where the reader tortures a random dataset through subgroups and exclusions until it yields p
What evidence does it use?
own writing, demo computed in the browser; ClinicalTrials.gov (US public domain) and EU CTIS records for the worked comparisons; Ioannidis 2005 (PLOS, CC BY) and the COMPare project cited.
Where does this guide stop?
It explains the topic and points to primary or official sources. It does not replace a qualified professional, an official decision, or advice based on your own circumstances.
Turn the reference into a routine
TempoLife brings food, movement, sleep and everyday health habits into one private place when you want to track what happens next.